My Encounter with Border Patrol: aka "Does I'd like to talk to a Lawyer really work?"

[ATM]

It seems to me that hiding behind the "I won't answer questions without my lawyer stuff" is good advice for criminals. I think it is poor advice for non criminals. I also think it is a bad influence on one's children.

I have nothing to hide from anyone. Therefore I will answer any questions I am asked. Even though it might be my right to not answer,why wouldn't I? I don't get the paranoid mentality. Just because you are asked a question does not mean you are a target. If you are you will be mirandized. That would be a good time to not answer questions. But whatever.

Yes, we should be teaching our children that rights are for criminals.

Don't exercise your rights like the criminals do, that would be bad!

Except for concealing your guns like the criminals do. Everyone should do that. That one's good!

j706's logic is uncrackable.

 

[PatriotPride]

Yes, we should be teaching our children that rights are for criminals.

Don't exercise your rights like the criminals do, that would be bad!

Except for concealing your guns like the criminals do. Everyone should do that. That one's good!

j706's logic is uncrackable.

+1

 

[E5RANGER375]

These checkpoints are a direct result of Arizona Senate Bill 1070. I'm guessing you 'got a pass' with your attitude... because you don't look Hispanic.

no. they had these checkpoints way before then

 

[Wwwildthing]

no. they had these checkpoints way before then

True, but they were 'fishing expeditions'... it's a whole new game now with the power of SB1070 in their pocket.

 

[dross]

True, but they were 'fishing expeditions'... it's a whole new game now with the power of SB1070 in their pocket.

That bill has zero to do with this situation. It only affects Arizon law enforcement, not the Border Patrol. The first time I went through one of those stops was over twenty years ago, just south of Alamagordo, NM.

 

[Instant=.40cal=Karma]

I have nothing to hide from anyone. Therefore I will answer any questions I am asked. Even though it might be my right to not answer,why wouldn't I? I don't get the paranoid mentality. Just because you are asked a question does not mean you are a target. If you are you will be mirandized. That would be a good time to not answer questions. But whatever.

So by relinquishing your right to not answer his questions, how much further do you allow them to go? Will you let them search you without PC? Your family? Your vehicle? Your home?

Do you not think that you could be incriminating yourself before you are taken into custody? I don't get your line of thinking...

 

[Rookie]

So by relinquishing your right to not answer his questions, how much further do you allow them to go? Will you let them search you without PC? Your family? Your vehicle? Your home?

Do you not think that you could be incriminating yourself before you are taken into custody? I don't get your line of thinking...

He doesn't have to worry about it. He has immunity from the boys in blue.

 

[MACHINEGUN]

Except for concealing your guns like the criminals do.

Even though I think this whole thread is totally ridiculous.. I find your comment even more ridiculous!

I'm glad to see you finally admit people who carry concealed are criminals in YOUR mind!

 

[Rookie]

Every other sentence was dripping with sarcasm. Did you really choose to take that one seriously?

 

[jbombelli]

So what was the point in being a d---? Were you hiding something illegal or is just your thing to hassle guys attempting to do a job? I am a little confused I guess. I am embarrassed for you,your wife and kids. Sheezzz.

Of course you are. You've made it plain time and again you don't approve or appreciate people who exercise their rights.

Any reason for the name calling? Oh... that's right... that's one more way you show your contempt for Americans who stand up for themselves, and it's why I wouldn't urinate in your mouth if your stomach was on fire.

 

[LPMan59]

i normally don't get into the pissing matches involving LEOs, but i am disturbed by j706's remark. i'd like to think it was sarcasm, but i doubt it.

i admit i probably wouldn't have take the OP's route, but i hardly blame him for anything. in fact, well done! perhaps i should try this approach should i have any future interactions with the law.

 

[theweakerbrother]

It seems to me that hiding behind the "I won't answer questions without my lawyer stuff" is good advice for criminals. I think it is poor advice for non criminals. I also think it is a bad influence on one's children.

 

[Walter Zoomie]

IMHO, the random road block/check-point thing is unconstitutional to begin with, and I think the OP did a stellar job.

I really REALLY need to quit reading these threads. It gets me all jacked up, angry, and ready to throw...none of which are good for one's general well-being.

 

[Walter Zoomie]

So what was the point in being a d---? Were you hiding something illegal or is just your thing to hassle guys attempting to do a job? I am a little confused I guess. I am embarrassed for you,your wife and kids. Sheezzz.

 

[theweakerbrother]

I have to temper my above post with the already echoed ideas of the rights of citizens and the very real scenarios where we relinquish info at the point of a gun, figuratively speaking... and sometimes literally.

To J706,

I understand your perspective a bit because of your potential constant and repetitious negative encounters with criminals who flex their rights in your presence. "We didn't see anything happen to that young man, officer. I don't know how he got stabbed/shot/clubbed/beat et all." You see mothers tell their impressionable kids to never talk to the police and it is in reference to protecting a guilty family member from convicting them from a crime that they committed. Or maybe its after you've tackled a dirtbag who was caught red handed stealing from a store/individual who immediately wants to talk to his lawyer and says he was set up/framed/whatever.

The difference between these scenarios and the ones presented where legal law abiding citizens committing no crimes who refuse to answer questions presented to them from the arm of the .gov who has the potential to do great harm to them is not the same. It may be perceivably rude but it isn't necessarily your business where a person came from, where they may be going and why they're out late at night.

Fortunately, what's left of the constitution allows both law abiding citizens to flex their rights. You should be thankful for that because it makes your job easier because these are people who pay constant attention to the law and are rarely the cause for you to exercise your granted authority over them by collaring them off to jail. These same protections are also afforded to criminals caught red handed and those suspected of criminal activity who are actually innocent. The right to a fair trial should be extended to everyone when possible (example: I'd rather have someone popped in the act of a violent crime where the loss of innocent life than have them stand trial).

If I refuse to answer someone's questions because I'm flexing my rights, those rights should be respected. After all, you swore an oath to uphold those rights even if you disagree with them.

Now take a moment to be a bit philosophical. Which is more morally apprehensible, to break an oath sworn before brothers, God and community or have someone refuse to answer questions that one has no legal obligation to answer?

 

[USMC_0311]

Even though I think this whole thread is totally ridiculous.. I find your comment even more ridiculous!

I'm glad to see you finally admit people who carry concealed are criminals in YOUR mind!

Now Mike he didn't say that.

I thought the OP was very informative but yes some of the comments were ridiculous.

 

[SirRealism]

Even though I think this whole thread is totally ridiculous.. I find your comment even more ridiculous!

I'm glad to see you finally admit people who carry concealed are criminals in YOUR mind!

He said criminals carry concealed. He didn't say those who carry concealed are criminals.

 

[Gareth]

LEOs have the right to check IDs, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance documents. But they do not have the right to pump citizens for any additional information, such as their place of origin, and/or their intended destination. When they do this, they are exceeding their authority, and I would not answer such impertinent questions. If they insist on doing so, then I would insist they Mirandize me, or let me continue on my way unharassed.

America is not a turd world banana republic, yet, regardless of what the trendy, "tactical" oriented wannabe paramilitary posers that are infecting civilian police departments are entertaining wet dream fantasies about.

My sincere prayer: God, please bring back the "Adam 12" style LE code of conduct when gentlemen with badges performed their duties in a courteous, respectful manner that warranted reciprocation from the public they served, because I really hate the thought of being verbally insulted and physically brutalized for being "too slow" presenting my license and registration during a routine traffic stop, for example.

 

[SirRealism]

These checkpoints are a direct result of Arizona Senate Bill 1070. I'm guessing you 'got a pass' with your attitude... because you don't look Hispanic.

AZ 1070 allows state LEOs (not border patrol) to ask for proof of citizenship during a lawful stop for something else.

How does that apply here?

 

[finity]

So what was the point in being a d---? Were you hiding something illegal or is just your thing to hassle guys attempting to do a job? I am a little confused I guess. I am embarrassed for you,your wife and kids. Sheezzz.

Let me reiterate...



Your post is simply ridiculous.

Please stop making it harder on your fellow LEO's who actually do a good job & follow the Constitution & their oaths.

A question to the mods:

In the other thread about a cerain Circle Center Mall incident you threatened to ban the OP for just stirring the when you had no real evidence that's what he was intentionally doing.

Does that count for everyone or does the fact that j706 is a cop make him immune from being banned for this obvious attempt just to get the Rights minded members of all riled up?

I see no real usefullness to his post except to **** people off & give LEO's more difficulty in countering the "you're all alike" charge.

Isn't that the true definition of "troll"?

Ok, Ok. I'm not really suggesting he be banned but neither should anyone else except for the most egregious of violations.