Liberty, Rights, and the Constitution 2

[Prozac]

I smell PYB.

[HeloDude]

Excellent video depicting people exercising their Constituional Rights...educational as well (and funny at the very end!). I have no problems with people voluntarily choosing to answer questions, people just need to know that it's not required, regardless if agents attempt to intimidate or coerce you.

(and for Prozac, no, I'm not PYB, nor even know who he is haha)

[nsplayr]

This guy's within his rights and also just kinda being a dick. These guys are doing their jobs and didn't exactly give him a hard time (only watched the first exchange). I know it's cool around here to shit on law enforcement and DHS law enforcement in particular but I guess I just don't have that particular hate in my heart.

I rolled through a checkpoint between El Paso and Ruidoso recently and had an good experience. Flashed my mil ID and was told. "Thank you for your service Captain, have a great day." Took about 69 seconds off of my planned 5 hour trip.

[HeloDude]

This guy's within his rights and also just kinda being a dick. These guys are doing their jobs and didn't exactly give him a hard time (only watched the first exchange). I know it's cool around here to shit on law enforcement and DHS law enforcement in particular but I guess I just don't have that particular hate in my heart.

I rolled through a checkpoint between El Paso and Ruidoso recently and had an good experience. Flashed my mil ID and was told. "Thank you for your service Captain, have a great day." Took about 69 seconds off of my planned 5 hour trip.

So when you choose not to answer a question that you do not have to answer, you are being a 'dick'? Watch the entire video...you'll see that the people being stopped are not being disrespectful and that the agents are practicing intimidation/coercion, because if they weren't, they would allow the people to leave right away instead of going back and forth without allowing them to leave. If you can explain it any other way then I'd love to hear it.

As for how you personally choose to respond to their question, that's your voluntary choice, others choose not to answer. That doesn't make you are any better or worse than the guys who refuse. By the way, just because you don't want to answer fed agents/LE when you are not required to, this does not mean you are 'shitting' on them. The agents' job is to ask the question and detain people when they have probable cause and go from there as necessary...some people just don't want to answer a question they don't have to, that's all. By the way, can you post your full name, SSN address, DOB, and bank account number? Or maybe you don't feel like giving out that information that you're not required to do so. It's called The Constitution, why don't you embrace it?

The irony of all of this, nsplayr, is that you are against the deportation of those known to be here illegally, but think that people here legally exercising their Constitutional Rights are being 'dicks'. It's telling.

Edited June 9, 2014 by HeloDude

[nsplayr]

I totally support the right to not be subject to random searches and seizures, but just because you have that right doesn't mean you have to refuse to answer a question that takes 0.69 seconds to answer and does not harm you whatsoever to answer. It's significantly less stressful and wasteful of everyone's time to just say "Yes" or "No" as applicable and go on with your day. I do not feel that my stop at an internal checkpoint was a violation of my constitutional rights and the law is kind of on my side in being interpreted that way.

What I'm talking about is the same principle as guys who open carry AR-15s into a Chipotle. "Just exercising your Constitutional right" absolutely can make you a dick when you're inconveniencing others with a super-sized demonstration of those rights. Guns are cool and I really don't have a problem with open carry in theory, but come on, is carrying an AR into a restaurant really a good idea even if it's not technically illegal?

And while I do support deporting illegal aliens as a principle, it's funny that you try to ding me on that yet are so against measures set up explicitly to catch illegals and prevent them from crossing further into the US.

All said it's clearly not an argument that's winnable against a staunch libertarian, but I'd forward that you can maintain and cherish your constitutional rights without making it a dick measuring contest every time you encounter a law enforcement official trying to do his job. There's a big difference between being asked a quick question about citizenship status as a means of enforcing our immigration laws and a strip search of your car and body cavities, and the Supreme Court upheld that distinction.

Edited June 9, 2014 by nsplayr

[HeloDude]

I totally support the right to not be subject to random searches and seizures, but just because you have that right doesn't mean you have to refuse to answer a question that takes 0.69 seconds to answer and does not harm you whatsoever to answer. It's significantly less stressful and wasteful of everyone's time to just say "Yes" or "No" as applicable and go on with your day. I do not feel that my stop at an internal checkpoint was a violation of my constitutional rights and the law is kind of on my side in being interpreted that way.

That's totally cool that you want (and do) voluntarily answer their questions...not even saying I haven't and wouldn't continue to do so. But that's my choice, yours, and everyone else's choice (I thought you were pro-choice by the way?). Others, however, do believe being forced to answer is a violation of their Rights, regardless of whether or not you believe it is, and fortunately the courts agree.

What I'm talking about is the same principle as guys who open carry AR-15s into a Chipotle. "Just exercising your Constitutional right" absolutely can make you a dick when you're inconveniencing others with a super-sized demonstration of those rights. Guns are cool and I really don't have a problem with open carry in theory, but come on, is carrying an AR into a restaurant really a good idea even if it's not technically illegal?

I totally support any private buisness being able to turn someone away for any reason, so if Chipotle wants to ban the open-carrying of rifles in their establishment then I have no problem with it...hell, I don't have to eat in that private establishment. I also don't consider those guys 'dicks', either, maybe not the classiest people, but I'm sure most are nice guys. I wouldn't choose to do it, but then again I also don't choose to have tattoos, purposely rip a huge fart in front of someone in line, or be rude to people. By the way, they (for the most part) choose to open carry their rifles in public places to make the point that Texas does not allow the open carry of pistols, but allows the open carry of rifles. Fortunately I think they are getting their message across.

And while I do support deporting illegal aliens as a principle

Sorry dude, don't believe you, in principle or reality. If so, you would staunchly disagree with the administration's policy on dealing with illegals already in the country (not talking about their number which includes catching people at the actual border). So unless you're going to reveal something new for us...

...it's funny that you try to ding me on that yet are so against measures set up explicitly to catch illegals and prevent them from crossing further into the US.

They can (and do) catch illegals (at the border and who have been inside the country for years) without having to stop and question everyday people who are just going about their business/not doing anything wrong. I don't support a police state of being asked to 'show my papers' or 'answer their questions' on demand just because I am moving about and not breaking any laws. Our problem with illegals has nothing to do with these checkpoints.

All said it's clearly not an argument that's winnable against a staunch libertarian, but I'd forward that you can maintain and cherish your constitutional rights without making it a dick measuring contest every time you encounter a law enforcement official trying to do his job. There's a big difference between being asked a quick question about citizenship status as a means of enforcing our immigration laws and a strip search of your car and body cavities, and the Supreme Court upheld that distinction.

Nope, the courts have upheld that you do not have to answer the questions at these BP checkpoints...hence while after being harassed a few minutes, they are allowed to go on your way (watch the entire video).

If soemone tells the BP agent 'Sir, I respectfully decline to answer that question', then unless that agent has probable cause to detain that individual, then that should be the end of it and the person should be allowed to go their way. It's not the people who are being dicks about it, it's the agents not letting them go when soemone has already refused to answer their request. To be fair, I don't believe it's necessarily the fault of the BP agents, themselves, per se...rather it's the policy and standards set forth by the bureaucrats who make the higher level policy and send it down to into the field. Just like I don't think it was a a few random field ATF agents who came up with the plan to allow 2000 firearms to be illegally sold to what everyone knew would eventually mean that most of the firearms would wind up in the hands of Mexican cartels.

[nsplayr]

Look, I already broke a personal rule by engaging with you (once again). I think our respective points have been made. I still say it's a dick move to flaunt a demonstration of your individual rights to the detriment of the rest of society. Doesn't mean I don't also believe in a person's right to refuse to answer. Good day to you sir.

Edited June 9, 2014 by nsplayr

[HeloDude]

Look, I already broke a personal rule by engaging with you (once again). I think our respective points have been made. I still say it's a dick move to flaunt a demonstration of your individual rights to the detriment of the rest of society. Doesn't mean I don't also believe in a person's right to refuse to answer. Good day to you sir.

Dude, whatever--don't be such a wimp. You get all emotional because someone challenges your opinion. Don't respond to my posts if you don't want to have a discussion! By the way, did you finally watch the entire video?

[hispeed7721]

I still say it's a dick move to flaunt a demonstration of your individual rights to the detriment of the rest of society.

How is exercising your rights a detriment to society? It seems like you're saying anyone who exercises rights you disagree with is a dick

Doesn't mean I don't also believe in a person's right to refuse to answer.

Isn't this a direct contradiction to your own statement one sentence earlier...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nsplayr]

How is exercising your rights a detriment to society? It seems like you're saying anyone who exercises rights you disagree with is a dick

You have every right to do a lot of things that are dick moves...doesn't change my judgement of them. Open carrying an AR in a Chipotle may not be illegal but it's a detriment to society. Holding up traffic and essentially verbally sparing with federal law enforcement agents at an interior border checkpoint because you refuse to truthfully answer "yes" to a question that's perfectly legal and logical to ask, that's a detriment to society.

You can do those things, just like you can burn a flag or protest funerals or be a racist or whatever, but you can also be judged by others.

Isn't this a direct contradiction to your own statement one sentence earlier...

Nope.

[hispeed7721]

you refuse to truthfully answer "yes" to a question that's perfectly legal and logical to ask, that's a detriment to society.

I understand how doing that might be unnecessary but I'm sincerely curious how exercising that right is a detriment to society...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nsplayr]

Holding up the folks behind you, causing extra work for the border patrol agents, etc..not some huge detriment but still not exactly being neighborly and reasonably cooperative to something I at least think is a reasonable endeavor to help catch illegal immigrants or other criminals.

[hispeed7721]

You must think every single person is a detriment to society if holding up the people behind you qualifies for it.

Unnecessary? Maybe, the argument can be made at least. Detrimental to society? Not even close

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[338skybolt]

"Dick moves": Cap and trade, global warming climate change climate adaptation regulation, VA "scheduling" issues, ACA - "You can keep your plan", Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Acorn, IRS targeting, Solyndra, etc., etc., etc.

[Vertigo]

I rolled through a checkpoint between El Paso and Ruidoso recently and had an good experience. Flashed my mil ID and was told. "Thank you for your service Captain, have a great day." Took about 69 seconds off of my planned 5 hour trip.

So 1% of the U.S. population is good to go with a Mil ID flash. Good for us.

Holding up traffic and essentially verbally sparing with federal law enforcement agents at an interior border checkpoint because you refuse to truthfully answer "yes" to a question that's perfectly legal and logical to ask, that's a detriment to society.

Holding up the folks behind you, causing extra work for the border patrol agents, etc..not some huge detriment but still not exactly being neighborly and reasonably cooperative to something I at least think is a reasonable endeavor to help catch illegal immigrants or other criminals.

This is what you are failing to understand. The person driving isn't the one holding up traffic. It's the Federal Agent that is the one holding up traffic!

Here's how it should go-

Driver pulls up to checkpoint-

LE: "Sir, are you a U.S. citizen (or have you had anything to drink this evening)?"

Driver: "I respectfully refuse to answer any questions"

Assuming LE has no reasonable suspicion person is illegally in the country or intoxicated at that point, LE then says: "Have a good day, sir."

Driver pulls away from checkpoint.

Edited June 9, 2014 by Vertigo

[hispeed7721]

I'm in 100% agreement with Vertigo (time/date noted)

The really sad thing is this (very close to Vertigo's scenario) was implemented in either TX or AZ and quickly pulled because it was offensive and discriminatory. What a croc

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited June 9, 2014 by hispeed7721

[Mark1]

I rolled through a checkpoint between El Paso and Ruidoso recently and had an good experience. Flashed my mil ID and was told. "Thank you for your service Captain, have a great day." Took about 69 seconds off of my planned 5 hour trip.

You should have thrown it out the window while you were at it and then wiped your ass with the Constitution.

Extra douche points for using your military status to gain favor with law enforcement. Don't bother with your predictable response to this either...it's bullshit and you know it. You did not have to show any ID whatsoever, but if you wanted to, it was a conscious decision to use the CAC.

Does it not strike you as unbelievably hypocritical to use you status as a person whose charter is to defend the Constitution and what it stands for (equality under law being one of those things), to then win favorable treatment for yourself over your civilian counterparts? As long as you're taken care of...it's all about you.

[nsplayr]

Damn man...have a bad day or something? You disagree with the policy of internal checkpoints, got it, no need to make it personal.

Honestly this was my first experience with such a checkpoint and I noticed the 3 cars in front of me seemed to show an ID, I did not realize that was not required or necessarily expected.

No apologies for showing my CAC as a form of ID, I do it all the time and see absolutely no problem with doing so. I'm assuming from your response that you don't take part in military discounts and also have never used your CAC as a form of ID at the airport which usually results in expedited screening.

Edited June 10, 2014 by nsplayr

[matmacwc]

I did it once half asleep and thought I was at the gate, they laughed and waved me through. Just be cool, they are doing there job and realize they probably don't want to be there either, they would probably rather be running through the wilderness looking for illegals.

[Mark1]

I'm assuming from your response that you don't take part in military discounts and also have never used your CAC as a form of ID at the airport which usually results in expedited screening.

That is correct. The only military discounts I ever benefited from were those that were automatically applied without solicitation on my part because I was in uniform. However, I don't take issue with military discounts...

There's a big difference between a private business owner giving you a discount of their own volition to say 'thanks', and using your ID in the hopes that a government official will give you the 'bro' treatment and spare you the cavity search that your civilian counterparts get.

Do you think it's appropriate for an off duty police officer to 'accidentally' flash his badge and appeal for leniency after being pulled over for breaking a law that you or I would be ticketed/arrested for?

[nsplayr]

We're not talking about breaking the law or being suspected of breaking the law and trying to weasel out of punishment...we're talking about routine security (airport) or immigration (interior checkpoints) searches conducted on all people passing through that point. If you try to say you're a General to get out of a DUI or some other such nonsense you're an idiot and I'm pretty sure you won't be successful anyways.

The point of those searches is to screen for security threats to air travel and to attempt to interdict illegal immigrants. I say that showing my military ID, one in particular that identifies me as an officer (since all officers must be citizens) is helping those guys do their job more efficiently, although I probably won't show any ID at those immigration checkpoints anymore since it's not required or really expected (news to me, first timer).

The chance of a military officer blowing up an airliner or being an illegal immigrant is extremely low and thus I any any other person possessing such an ID can rightfully benefit from the positive side of law enforcement profiling, which BTW I also support as a general concept. I'm all for our law enforcement officials using legal ways to operate more efficiently; focus more on actual bad guys and less on regular dues who are going about their business and it's a win-win.

BL: I'm not getting any "special treatment;" I'm getting the same treatment any person would get who is assessed to be an extremely low threat to airline travel (i.e. your sweet, old-ass grandmother) or who at a quick glance is assessed to almost certainly be a U.S. citizen (your call on what that means).

And FWIW if there was some way to reciprocate the same level of professional, low-risk "bro treatment" to a federal law enforcement officer should he or she be riding aboard my aircraft for some reason then I'd absolutely extend them the courtesy. Despite some feelings to the contrary I've read on these boards and a small percentage of bad apples, law enforcement officers are generally part of the good-guy team and I'm happy to salute other members of that team.

Edited June 10, 2014 by nsplayr

[HeloDude]

And FWIW if there was some way to reciprocate the same level of professional, low-risk "bro treatment" to a federal law enforcement officer should he or she be riding aboard my aircraft for some reason then I'd absolutely extend them the courtesy.

You probably meant to say that you, as the Nav, would request to the AC, that he/she extends some special 'bro treatment' to Fed LE. Guess it would all have to depend on the request.

[Homestar]

law enforcement has long relied on your lack of knowledge of your constitutional rights in order to perform searches, perform interrogations, etc. It wasn't till the 1960s that law enforcement was even required to inform you that you actually had rights (wikipedia tells me that Miranda v Arizona only passed 5-4, btw).

law enforcement is just doing their job, I know, but in the course of just doing their job I have certain rights that I demand be protected. No, I don't have cocaine in the trunk, but no you may not search my vehicle either.

[lloyd christmas]

And that is what people vote for.

[HeloDude]

I say good for him, and I like to watch/DVR Stossel ('The Independents' on FBN is even better, and entertaining). I'm assuming it's cool with big blue, that or he just doesn't care anymore?

I didn't agree with everything he has said (on here and other places) but I give the guy a lot of credit for standing up and taking the heat that comes with it. Most of us (whether in the military or not, and myself included) rarely take a stand on issues we feel strongly about, but he has done it, whether you agree with him on the issue/how he took it on, or not. It's easy to demonize the people that put themlseves out there, and again, that's because they're doing what the rest of us won't do.

Could the guy have been less of an ass on here at times, yeah, most definitely, though I can say that about a few others on here, too. Maybe he learned a little in how to be better/more persuasive with his arguments.