digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

Rejecting Authority at Police State Checkpoint watch!

liveleak.com — The checkpoint in this video was nearly 50 miles north of the Mexican border, so it would have been utterly pointless in stopping illegal immigration. The real purpose of these checkpoints is to condition Americans to get used to the police state.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • yellowcakewalk, on 05/10/2008, -94/+551Excellent activism!
    • skateboard1, on 05/10/2008, -37/+236this guy did everything right. he never refused to comply just wanted an answer . that takes discipline
      • temporaryescape, on 05/10/2008, -123/+35lol everything right? just say you're american like any other person driving through would. this was utterly pointless, and only proved that he can repeat himself like a 4 year old. people driving through checkpoints with cameras will not change policies.
        • Dested, on 05/10/2008, -18/+81Im not sure if you are a troll or just 12.
          • Drahkar, on 05/10/2008, -8/+28Probably Both. He obviously is too young to truly understand the concept of Freedom, Personal Liberty and abuse of authority.
          • temporaryescape, on 05/10/2008, -22/+8my point was that filming an officer simply following her orders isn't changing anything, but feel free to falsely accuse me the way you complain our government is.
          • Nevarius, on 05/11/2008, -3/+11Makes one sad that classes that used to teach concepts of freedom, liberty, rights, etc are mostly striped out of public education.
          • Drahkar, on 05/11/2008, -4/+4@temporaryescape -
            Falsely accuse you? We're merely suggesting that you are too young to recognize and fully understand how something like that could lead to far worse things. You from the hit defensive reaction just goes to reinforce that perception. Granted there are older people with the same shortsightedness and with the same low esteem that causes those views and reactions, but more often than not, especially on the Internet you'll find that its just a kid voicing their opinion that unfortunately doesn't have all the facts or the wisdom that one gains through experience.
          • KibibyteBrain, on 05/11/2008, -2/+4Its true it alone probably will not change anything, but that can be said for almost any action. You could claim that every bullet shot in a war is a futile act by that reasoning, because it alone does little to win the war. These are long term things, and only though the small efforts of thousands or millions can any sort of payoff be seen or realized.
          • PoSSeSSeDCoW, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Slippery slope fallacy to the max!
          • wahoorob, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0You use phrases like "freedom, personal liberty and abuse of authority" pretty casually. I doubt you've ever served in the military or been part of the thin blue line that tries to keep the balance between the freedoms/personal liberty you enjoy and anarchy. Then you label someone who disagrees with you as childish. Granted, there are some abuses of power to be fought against. This stop was not one of them. And it makes the guy with the camera not a noble freedom fighter, but an petulant child who has forgotten what it means to simply be polite and respectful.
            But go on living in the internet bubble where you and the anarchist minions flock to postings like this like flies to a turd...and just keep telling yourself that your meal is prime rib, it just smells a bit funny.
          • kurtu5, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Wahoorob, what about the public servant? She was asked a question over and over and never issued a response, what about her petulance? Why do you not hold here up to the same level of being polite and respectful? Its a two way street.
        • skateboard1, on 05/10/2008, -11/+47ignorance is bliss eh? good luck if you ever get 'checked'
          • artliquide, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5I honestly don't understand what the purpose of this "protest" was. As a resident of a border state, I welcome stronger border patrol efforts. If there were racial profiling or some other such illegal activity going on, I would have been right there with him, but I don't see what the big deal is here. I see usual, organized practices that have been going on for years...practices meant to control the flow of illegal immigration. I'm not against immigration, as long as it's done legally, but living in a southern border state, I have seen so many negative consequences of illegal immigration (more crime, more drugs, full prisons). That being said, I know plenty of illegal immigrants who contribute positively to society, but I do think that something should be done to control the flow. So, what's wrong with our government actually doing something about it?
          • rspeed, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Because this wasn't at the border. It's perfectly reasonable to stop cars at the border, but in the location they're enforcing they have no right to detain or question a driver without reasonable suspicion. If they want to stop cars there, then we had better give those 50 miles to Mexico.
        • qwerty2159, on 05/11/2008, -4/+3you must be canadian eh?
      • unreg, on 05/10/2008, -107/+34He could have just answered the question instead of being a complete tool.
        • Protonz, on 05/10/2008, -12/+105"'She' could have just answered the question instead of being a complete tool."

          There, I fixed it for you.
          • scotticus, on 05/10/2008, -43/+13She was just doing her job... she's not the one responsible for whatever policy she was enforcing.
          • MellerTime, on 05/10/2008, -7/+30You protest where you can. The person responsible wasn't stopping him, so he protested with the person who was.
          • Jlaugh, on 05/10/2008, -8/+53As a citizen she should be concerned about illegal unconstitutional policies and so should you. Police need to learn that they are not above the law.
          • buckrogers1965, on 05/10/2008, -5/+31@scotticus

            I think the "I was just following orders" defense has been used before.
          • gandhii, on 05/10/2008, -4/+20nobody forced her to take that job. So much for responsibility.
          • yongtae, on 05/10/2008, -4/+19The Schutzstaffel were also just doing their job...
          • dinostabOMG, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6I'd still have hit it.
          • swefred, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2 scotticus: Was the people who sent Jews to their death just doing there jobs?
          • scotticus, on 05/11/2008, -3/+6a) Comparing this to the holocaust is ridiculous, and if I were a Jew I'd be insulted.

            b) None of the people responding to me actually have the balls to do something like this, and they're vicariously living through this guy's balls. Passing through this checkpoint and stating that you're an American is hardly an illegal search and seizure, and isn't in the least and undue burden.

            c) When she took the job, she probably didn't know she'd be working checkpoints, and she might have higher aspirations in life, this being a step along the way. You don't know her, and I'm grateful to have people willing to protect the security of our country. Above all of that, these people save the lives of countless border crossers who get stranded in the dessert.

            d) My point is that being a dick to this girl isn't going to change the policy. There are less antagonistic ways of dealing with problems that are ultimately more successful.
          • miggie, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Why is it that all of us that see this guy for the tool he really is are being dugg down. The guy is a jerk. They do this type of check point in NJ for people driving without car insurance all the time. Some of those people have been caught with large amounts of drugs and guns. It's not that big of a deal and the guy is a white liberal jerk who if a Latino or Black moved in his neighborhood he be the first person to cry that crime is coming to the area. Illegals are find if they stay in there little neighborhood and not move into his. Before you scream racism I'm black and I live in the bu thole of NJ Newark. I hate this town and if it burned down around me I would be happy. Unfortunately I can't afford to live in a nicer place with out spending $1200 for a studio.
          • yongtae, on 05/11/2008, -0/+0Once you give power to someone, you control the person. Power corrupts.

        • mikelieman, on 05/10/2008, -4/+331. "Am I Under Arrest?"

          2. "May I Go Now?"

          3. Goto 1.
        • rentmitchum, on 05/11/2008, -5/+74. Profit
        • int19h, on 06/01/2008, -0/+1unreg, with that attitude, you're the tool. Authority takes as much authority as they can.
      • Ne007, on 05/10/2008, -17/+152You are a complete tool for missing the point. These people have no authority to set up these checkpoints in the United States of America.

        In the U.S. there has to be a reason to be detained, stopped or questioned.

        Checkpoints are illegal, but continue because the people "in charge" of justice are impeading justice.
        • WTFppl, on 05/10/2008, -14/+5Lots of statesmen do not know what it means to be a statesman. That is why ppl let their ignorance call themselves American!
        • unreg, on 05/10/2008, -26/+13I call you out on the Ne007: Please cite relevant material as to your statement regarding being detained, stopped, questioned.
          • FloMonster, on 05/10/2008, -2/+30http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_t ...
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_ ...

            Easy enough to find.
          • unreg, on 05/10/2008, -23/+4You actually think the 14th Amendment is relevant to the situation at hand? That's sad.
          • flameboy, on 05/10/2008, -5/+27"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

            You don't think thats relevant? You're sad.
          • KiraDnote, on 05/10/2008, -20/+2The US border patrol is upholding federal law, the 14th amendment is irrelevant.
          • novenator, on 05/10/2008, -3/+18huh? the border patrol does not have to obey the constitution?
          • execute85, on 05/10/2008, -3/+10Unfortunately, checkpoints are legal in the US. They have been challenged multiple times (for sobriety checks) and they are upheld each time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobriety_checkpoints

            It's ridiculous and I hope it changes, but civil liberties are in danger.
          • unreg, on 05/10/2008, -12/+5@flameboy

            If you think a traffic checkpoint is abridging your privileges as a citizen your in for a very frustrating life.
          • flameboy, on 05/11/2008, -2/+14@unreq
            I do.
            And if you think there is nothing wrong with searching 50 people to find 1 criminal, OR tapping 100 phones to find 10 conmen, OR stopping 1000 motorists to find 1 smuggler

            Then you should leave the country because you clearly don't support the beliefs it was founded on.
        • robbiemuffin, on 05/10/2008, -2/+23that's one of the more wildly wrestled-with claims ... in the US it _is_ legal to have spontaneous checkpoints, according to the most recent supreme court ruling on it. Whether there is any real grounds or if it is only a temporary misreading in that one case, is a different question. I agree that in the long run, the supreme court will tend to rule in favor of the right sof individuals here, since it is pretty explicitly stated in the constitution. But for now, at least, that is not the case.
          • FloMonster, on 05/10/2008, -4/+29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobriety_checkpoint#L ...

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Dept._of_Sta ...

            "Dissenting justices argued that the Constitution doesn’t provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion", dissenting Justice Brennan insisted."

            The three dissenting justices were right, the Constitution does not provide for exceptions to the Fourth Amendment. Sobriety checkpoints, immigration checkpoints (not located at or directly near the border) are a violation of the "right of the people to be secure in their persons…" as afforded to you by the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution.
          • robbiemuffin, on 05/10/2008, -1/+12Well, it looks like you and I agree. We even use some of the same online resources! :)

            The dissenting judges were right, but the actual law of the US at this moment in time just doesn't support that position. When the supreme court's make up is significantly different, it will likely overturn that position. But for now, it's the law.

            The reason officers are asked not to detain people on the offset like that is that it can bring the issue back into the courts. They don't generally care about random checkpoints, they really care about challenges of actual neutrality that this could represent in the courts.
          • KiraDnote, on 05/10/2008, -3/+10The Supreme Court's decision is binding, and the opinions of the dissenters don't matter.
          • novenator, on 05/10/2008, -7/+8too bad the supreme court has been stacked with conservative, activist judges
          • MrWhite7, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3... which is blowback from the bastardization of the commerce clause created by FDR's politicization. I disagree with some of the current stretches but some around here need to reap what they sow to get the point.
          • Nevarius, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7So basically they cant say your detained, but yet your not allowed to go. So basically you are detained, but yet not officially detained. Hmm guess thats counts as legal and constitutional nowadays.
          • flameboy, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2@KiraDnote
            The dissenting opinions are very important. If at some point the courts choose to revisit this issue they may decide the dissenting opinion is more accurate... and this does happen.
        • triscuitbiscuit, on 05/10/2008, -22/+9They are not illegal. As long as no specific individual is being targeted, there is nothing wrong with them.
          Calling skateboard1 a tool is not right, it is rather you who is the tool and think that this arrogant, a-hole is right in the way that he was acting. He should have been arrested there on the spot because he was obviously never told that you disrespect the law in the way that he did.
          • vuke69, on 05/10/2008, -3/+7You have that backwards man. If it was a specific individual being targeted, with the requisite suspicions, then it WOULD be legal. If is ILLEGAL for them to just go on a fishing expedition.
          • flameboy, on 05/10/2008, -3/+10You really do have it backwards.

            The border patrol is disrespecting law abiding citizens by forcing them to stop and submit information they are not constitutionally required to give.
          • Nevarius, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5So it comes down to "respect my authoritah"? So im guessing your one of those people that pull out a donut, bottle of lube and bends over for anyone of authoritah.

            vere are zee papers? Vee must heff zee papers!

            Please review and learn from friggin history some time.
        • SLYK, on 05/11/2008, -12/+8Who gives a flying *****? If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to be worried about. You're still living a happy life right? Two minutes at a checkpoint isn't going to screw you.

          The people that do this are just ***** bored with nothing better to do.
          • flameboy, on 05/11/2008, -3/+8*sigh*
            such ignorance...
          • 11oops, on 05/11/2008, -2/+6So if the cops kick in your door and seize your computer, all you'll say is "it's ok. I'm not doing anything wrong so i have nothing to worry about?" What if they give you a cavity search after they kick in the door -- will you still have the "It's OK, I have nothing to hide" attitude?

            Two minutes with a dude's finger up your ass isn't going to screw you... in the way you were talking about at least.
          • PdxPhoenix, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Yes, but people forget the opposite is also true (and much more important); if you are not doing anything wrong, then _they_ have no reason, or right, to "detain" you for two minutes at a checkpoint.
            @flameboy
            I've always found it amazing how so few words can reveal so much ignorance.
      • robbiemuffin, on 05/10/2008, -36/+13no , well at least he didn't do everything morally right. He was a pain in the ass and shouldn't be doing that ... going so far as even filming it is one thing, but then posting it and thereby destroying the anonymity of the officer who was pretty obviously just doing her duty unemotionally, that is going too far.
        • barag, on 05/10/2008, -4/+38anonymity of an officer? seems to contradict "Public Servant"
          • robbiemuffin, on 05/10/2008, -20/+3well he _can_ do it ... just that he _shouldn't_ do it. If a truck carrying a vat of LSD spills right on top of you while I'm standing around with a video camera, and you just happen to take your clothes off, dance like a chicken, and curse out anyone you can think of, ... maybe I _can_ film it, and release it to the public. I just think its a pretty ***** thing to do.
          • barag, on 05/10/2008, -0/+8This is a situation that has little to do with public embarrassment. This is about exposing the air of obedience that is becoming so accustomed here in the US. This is not someone making a fool of themselves with no consequence besides possible social embarrassment. This is someone who is representing part of OUR government, who wishes, be it indirectly or not, to erode our civil liberties and freedoms. But you know, I guess Jeff Widener should have never taken that picture of Tiananmen Square, think of the feelings of those poor soldiers.
          • MrWhite7, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Stretch the Constitution for good reasons and stretch it for bad...
          • gutistg, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2There are also laws about filming people in public places, those laws usually make exceptions for public servants.
          • PdxPhoenix, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1@gutistg
            No, there aren't if you are in a public place you can take pictures of anything you can see from said public place.
            http://www.photolawnews.com/index.html
            http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
            etc...
        • gandhii, on 05/10/2008, -3/+15The officer is a public servant. How exactly is a "public" servant expected to have professional anonymity?
          • KiraDnote, on 05/10/2008, -9/+2The names and addresses of public servants should indeed be kept private. You're really not thinking about what you're saying. You're just taking a position out of ignorance. It's a dumb thing to do.
          • gutistg, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4He's not asking for the address of the officer. He's asking for professional information.
        • flameboy, on 05/10/2008, -2/+9its so sad how badly our rights have already been eroded where more and more people post comments like this
        • MrWhite7, on 05/10/2008, -3/+1how has his post eroded your rights? If you want to live in a free society, it's your job to educate the uneducated. Don't just bitch and moan.
        • flameboy, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6@MrWhite7
          I never said his post eroded my rights, I said it is evidence of how badly our rights have already been eroded.

          Take a look at how many comments ive posted on this topic. I *am* trying.
          It is quite discouraging however to see the number of people who have already begun to accept authoritarian rule.
      • infinityofnever, on 05/11/2008, -9/+3that guy was just lucky the border patrol was a woman and a soft one at that. if she was a tough interrogator or a big looking guy, he might not have succeeded with what he did.
        • t0x2c, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4I would have hated to be that girl, in fact I would have just said "no you're not being detained get out of my face". She obviously knew the law that's why she avoided the questions, for some reason she takes her $18 an hour job too seriously.
          • qwerty2159, on 05/11/2008, -3/+2those of us who have jobs know that there are the things we are supposed to do and there are the easier ways to do them. if she admits that he's free to go them they let a car through and their mission has no authority. it just like the bum on the street with the cardboard sign. if she just gets him to say i was born in America, he can go on his way and she has done her job. so much for the right way to do things
    • wahoorob, on 05/10/2008, -123/+56Excellent, except for the fact that he obviously kept asking the wrong question.

      Instead of "Am I being detained?" he should've been asking, "Am I being an *****?"

      And instead of "Am I free to go?" substitute "Am I free to be a dick somewhere else?"

      Then the whole scene would've been spot on.
      • zephc, on 05/10/2008, -7/+72Papers, please.
      • unreg, on 05/10/2008, -43/+12I'd pay good money to have seen the agent step back, shoot out his truck tires and say "Why yes, I do believe you are" after the umpeenth billion iternation of "Am I being detained".

        Border agents aren't the kind of people you want to ***** with. They'll impound your vehicle, tear it apart looking for contraband and then shrug their shoulders afterwards. Opps, my mistake.

        • zephc, on 05/10/2008, -4/+52Except he wasn't at the US border, and what they had was an intimidation checkpoint, with no actual (passport) proof of citizenship required.
          • unreg, on 05/10/2008, -24/+8Key word you seem to have trouble understanding: Check Point

            You do understand the concept of sneaking across the border, don't you? It's to avoid detection, capture, detainment. Hence, you're not going to cross at the clearly marked and staffed border crossing, your going to sneak across at some remote location.

            Now once across you're going to want to travel away from the border. You generally accomplish that by using the road network. Ambling along through open fields is probab ly going to attract attention. And you're not going to get very far.

            So we set up shop on the road and let you come to us. Just like a sobriety checkpoint.

          • thall, on 05/10/2008, -6/+15@unreg, you're talking about replicating the border check point away from the border. If it were really intended as such a check point then the woman would not have let him pass (does border patrol let people through if they keep asking questions like this guy did?). She didn't even ask him for a driver's license!! The check point would only be effective if they stopped and checked everyone's immigrant status by asking for their license or passport. She did neither so it looks more to me like an opportunity for them to cherry pick who ever they want to pull over and "investigate further". Like it was said, this kind of check point is nothing more than a training exercise for the peon citizens to get used to a police state.
          • unreg, on 05/10/2008, -13/+3@thall: She asked him a simple question. You'd be surprised how many people actually foul up. They stammer or act in such a manner as to seem that they're hiding something. This tool played right into it. Instead of simply answering the question he became combative and evasive.

            Seems to me that the Police State would want to focus their efforts in a more populated area.
          • thall, on 05/10/2008, -3/+13@unreg,
            "She asked him a simple question". The complexity of the question is irrelevant to whether the guy should answer, and its context is not as innocent as you keep purporting it to be: This isn't some fellow citizen stopping someone on their daily jog to ask them for the time, this is a uniformed officer flagging down every driver to interrogate them, effectively requiring them to prove their innocence on the spot even though there was no reason to suspect they are guilty.

            "You'd be surprised how many people actually foul up". That statement alone shows how ineffective these checkpoints really are: If the innocent foul up because they're nervous, they're penalized. If the guilty do not foul up because they're trained, they're free to go. There are several ways to protect the border, this one comes with strings attached and if you pay attention the comments in this thread concern those strings, not the safety of the border.

            "This tool played right into it". Huh? So you're saying he was guilty and the check point did it's job by making him seem that he was hiding something? If that's true then the checkpoint really failed because she let him go!

            "Instead of simply answering the question he became combative and evasive". So did she, how was she serving the public good by doing that? Answer: she wasn't because that wasn't the primary objective of the check point, as much as you want it to be.

            "Seems to me that the Police State would want to focus their efforts in a more populated area". Cities don't have an opportunity to set up check points because of the 100 routes to get around them!
          • gandhii, on 05/10/2008, -2/+1unreg: they do that too
      • boot20, on 05/10/2008, -40/+14Not only did this tool hold up the whole line, but screwed with a Border Patrol Agent who has a sh*tty enough job as it is. If she really wanted to screw with him, she could have had him arrested and impounded his car.

        She showed remarkable restraint.
        • 47f0, on 05/10/2008, -6/+50Wow. Just wow. Believe it or not, children, some of us remember a time when law enforcement actually upheld their oath to the constitution. I am utterly stunned at the number of people posting who think the police have the right to do anything they want. Boot, you just saw an American citizen showing remarkable restraint in the face of an officer who refused to answer a question she is required to answer.
          • unreg, on 05/10/2008, -26/+4Yes, asking somebody a simple question was such a violation of basic human rights. You ***** DIgg Babies need to step back and get a grasp on reality. Perhaps read about the oppression in the Soviet Union or the lack of basic rights in China. How about a whirl-wind tour of some tin-pot dictatorships in Central America. Cuba in the 70's was kind of nice.

          • thall, on 05/10/2008, -2/+20@unreg,
            Did you notice some cars had been pulled over for further investigation? Did you notice at one point she told him to pull over? Does that sound like it was just "asking somebody a simple question"??
          • boot20, on 05/10/2008, -22/+1Apparently many diggers weren't alive in the 50's, 60's, 70's, or 80's. I mean honestly, this is nothing new, nothing amazing, and nothing to get in a huff over.

            I'd be more pissed at the jackass because he held up the line for no reason other than to be a dick.
          • unreg, on 05/10/2008, -15/+3@thall, I believe the purpose of her asking him to pull over would be that he had now become an obstruction to traffic.
          • macplenty, on 05/10/2008, -3/+12@unreg,

            What is the point of bringing up the Soviet Union or China? They are not part of any conversation dealing with the border patrol of the United States of America. Let Russians and the Chinese citizens worry about Russia and China, Americans will worry about America.

            If the police or other American authority agency stops you for anything, they better have a very good reason to do so. Being polite or not is secondary to the real issue at hand.
          • thall, on 05/10/2008, -2/+14@unreg, if the obstruction to traffic is the problem then the checkpoint shouldn't have been there in the first place.
          • bitterbug, on 05/10/2008, -3/+4Sorry, but I find it to be utterly naive or simply wishful thinking for you to state you "remember a time when law enforcement actually upheld their oath to the constitution." The FBI has a long history of dirty tricks. New York was known for having more dirty cops than clean ones. Hell, the dirty cops may have outnumbered actual criminals in the city. Police have regularly violated the constitutional rights of racial and social minorities since cops were invented.
            This is not to say all cops are bad. There are most certainly good cops and there are bad cops. But you can't make a blanket statement about "I remember when..." and expect it to go unchallenged.
        • Nesh, on 05/10/2008, -3/+35And for what crime would she have arrested him and impounded his car?
          • unreg, on 05/10/2008, -30/+6I'd have gone with being a douchebag.
          • boot20, on 05/10/2008, -26/+2There are a number of things going on here, but the easiest would be probable cause or general douchebaggery.
          • userperson, on 05/10/2008, -2/+8They'd make somethin' up, I think "resisting arrest" is pretty popular.
          • nickbarber, on 05/10/2008, -2/+12@unreg

            So now being a douche is a crime? What happened to the first amendment as far as free speech goes? Last time I checked, a member of the United States Border Patrol cannot detain a U.S. citizen just because he/she is being annoying.
          • gandhii, on 05/10/2008, -4/+9If "douchebaggery" is a crime, then I wish the prison system wouldn't be wasting my tax dollars on the prison internet connections that unreg and boot20 are apparently using.
    • portnoy, on 05/10/2008, -72/+26I have to wonder how much that dude enjoys having some peckerhead harass him when he's trying to do HIS job? (And yes, I am calling the DUDE a PECKERHEAD)
      • elDud3rino, on 05/10/2008, -6/+24You seem proud of the fact that you are capable of using such rudimentary insults. Nice work.
      • unreg, on 05/10/2008, -15/+5Are my fries done? Are the done yet.
    • xXIrsotehkewlXx, on 05/10/2008, -78/+30No. That is ***** stupid. Why do people have to be such assholes. Just ***** answer the damn questions. It won't hurt you to comply and it will probably take less time. I don't see any "OMG MY FREEDOMS ARE BEING TAKEN AWAY" here. They just ask a few questions. People have to be such jackasses these days.
      • Protonz, on 05/10/2008, -10/+37Okay xXIrsotehkewlXx. What is your real name, address and phone number?

        Are you afraid to tell us for some reason?
        • xXIrsotehkewlXx, on 05/10/2008, -17/+11Well if you were a government officer, I would be glad to give it up.
          and my Cell is 252 361 4222

          I like text messages and today is Saturday so I have unlimited minutes.
          Always have unlimited texts though.

          and My name is Sarah.
          It's wonderful to meet you :)
          • troye, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5Believe it or not; it's her actual phone number!!!
          • xXIrsotehkewlXx, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4Yes it is.
            And for future reference, Don't call or text me unless you REALLY want me to respond.
            ALSO, it is really rude to call and ask if its me, then hang up.
            :(
        • unreg, on 05/10/2008, -12/+6The agent didn't ask that question. She simply asked his country of origin.
        • xXIrsotehkewlXx, on 05/10/2008, -10/+12My phone is not ringing.
          You guys suck.

          Also I am sure the rest of my info wouldn't be terribly hard to find.
          Especially because my myspace page is linked in my digg profile.
          I am pretty sure my full name is on there somewhere.
          Some light googling could bring up the rest of my info
          • Coven, on 05/10/2008, -2/+1edit: nevermind....
          • godseyeview, on 05/10/2008, -1/+6LOL hope u learned ur lesson comrade. now sign up for a new phone account
          • boot20, on 05/10/2008, -4/+3That's because digg is home of the toolboxes that talk big smack and are too afraid to do anything...

            On that note: How you doin'?
          • rex84, on 05/10/2008, -1/+5You took your myspace link down.
          • nickbarber, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4@rex84
            a simple google search on her phone number reveals that her myspace is http://www.myspace.com/mysteriouseyes
          • xXIrsotehkewlXx, on 05/10/2008, -2/+5That is SO cool that my phone number brings up my myspace.
            Also, Only one of you kids has contacted me. And this person has a good point.

            I get WHY he did it, I just don't like people that put effort into making other people's jobs harder. It makes for a sucky world to live in.
          • kurtu5, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1So her job is to not answer a basic question that she is required by law to answer, but to trick the motorist into relinquishing its rights and volunteering for a interrogation?

            /Sounds like the agent was is dereliction of her constitutional duties.
        • publikjohn, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2ooohhhh her name is sayra!
      • flameboy, on 05/10/2008, -7/+57Wrong.
        You have the freedom of free unrestricted interstate travel. You have the right to move around within your country without being detained for unknown reasons. The people who set up this check point are assholes, not the guy standing up for his rights.

        At a time like this we NEED people who might seem a little like "assholes" to these government agencies who are slowly encroaching our rights.
        • SpiceWare, on 05/10/2008, -6/+37Agreed - I think the thing most people are missing is the text at the top - "The checkpoint in this video was nearly 50 miles north of the Mexican border".

          the immigration check point should be at the border, not in the interior of the state.
          • unreg, on 05/10/2008, -22/+6Correct, cause the illegal aliens come through the border at the designated crossing point. In fact, many of them wear bright yellow shirts with ALIEN across the front and back. Sometimes they even sing that Genesis song as they come across.

          • WilliamDavis, on 05/10/2008, -5/+5Are you saying they teleport 50 miles ahead somehow?
          • flameboy, on 05/10/2008, -4/+5unreq: you are simply too brainwashed to get the point. Don't bother trying to spew your authoritative perspective here, you aren't converting anybody.
      • hikaruzero, on 05/10/2008, -13/+10xXlrsotehkewlXx, where is your country of residence? Also, what is your social security number, for record-keeping purposes only, and what is your address and phone number so that I may get in contact with you?
    • unreg, on 05/10/2008, -128/+154What a pretentious dick head.

      I live in Northern NY along the Canadian border. I often see these kinds of checkpoints set up seeming miles from the border. Thet are nothing to get your panties in a bunch over. You stop, answer a question or two and continue on your way.

      The point is to catch the blundering idiot who thinks he's managed to evade the border checkpoint with his trunk load of goodies, be it cigarettes or human cargo.

      These agenst have a thankless job, compounded daily by the antics of douches bags who think they're being oppressed. Want oppression, go to China. I hear Myanmar is particularly lovely this time of year.
      • casidnet, on 05/10/2008, -21/+121It's the slippery slope argument. You let them do it there then in a few years you let them do it on the outskirts of every city then on every corner.

        Btw, Myanmar isn't in China.
        • unreg, on 05/10/2008, -26/+6They've been doing it for the past 25 years. First it was pot smuggling. Then cigarettes. Booze. Illegals.

          Once I awhile I have to deal with the two minute inconvenience of answer a question.
          • mikelieman, on 05/10/2008, -3/+22First they have to answer your questions:

            1) Am I under Arrest?

            2) May I go Now?

            3) Goto 1.

            Additionally, under 18 USC 1001, it's STUPID for *anyone* to make *any* statements to *any* federal agent or employee without counsel present.



          • flameboy, on 05/10/2008, -1/+925 years. Looks like pot usage hasn't declined in the slightest Illegals have no problems coming in. We all know how prohibition ended...
            So as far as I see your methods not only violate the constitution, but they don't work.
          • Nevarius, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4And yet its so very profitable for many industries if pot remained illegal. Pharma (lol they even made synthetic versions of THC and put patents on them) , lumber, alcohol, law enforcement, prisons, and cotton, just to name a few. And all these Industries Lobby and support any measure. person, or group that keeps pot illegal.
            So you see, they do work.........for greedy whoring people that benefit from it.
        • lunacraz, on 05/10/2008, -4/+15i dont think he was saying that myanmar was in china.. just another example

          man whats with all these hostile comments
        • skyisking, on 05/10/2008, -10/+1Your a slippery slop, picking up speed to no where. LAWL.
        • FadieZ, on 05/11/2008, -3/+4***** you lunacraz.
      • 80hd, on 05/10/2008, -33/+14I would rather be asked to open my trunk than let an ever growing % of my paycheck disappear to taking care of illegal immigrants.
        Whats worse? Being surrounded by border patrol officers looking for border jumpers, or a sea of 'new americans'?
        • WTFppl, on 05/10/2008, -5/+21"Keep the freeloading assholes from whatever country they come from, OUT"
          So what do we do with the ones that are already here...and if you didn't know, most "freeloaders" in the Empire are 'white'!
        • WilliamDavis, on 05/10/2008, -3/+9"I would rather be asked to open my trunk than let an ever growing % of my paycheck disappear to taking care of illegal immigrants."

          Lucky You! Plan to get both.
        • flameboy, on 05/10/2008, -3/+7GOPOp: Calling illegal immigrants "freeloaders" shows everyone exactly how undereducated, brainwashed, and flat out retarded you are.
        • flameboy, on 05/11/2008, -2/+7BTW, that % of your paycheck has nothing to do with illegals.

          The vast majority of your taxes go towards:
          1. Social Security which is a 100% failed system and has been corrupted by our government
          2. The trillion dollar war in Iraq and military spending
          3. The war on drugs which has been proven ineffective
          • kurtu5, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1No they don't. Our taxes only go to pay the interest payments on our debts to commercial banks. 85% of these payments goto foreign commercial banks.

            To pay for the things you listed above, we sell bonds to the central bank, who in turn has the treasury print dollars. We also monetize other types of debts.
      • 47f0, on 05/10/2008, -14/+88Yep, you're right. Best to surrender every last civil rights amendment to the authorities, because they're only here to help. They're only following orders. Read some history. Good people died for the freedoms you're ready to hand over so easily and cheaply.
      • Shatneresque, on 05/11/2008, -0/+37So as long as China is worse, it's okay?
        • Nevarius, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5But i thought we wanted to be number 1 !!!
          Go Team America
          /s
      • TheUndertoker, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5You're no real Northern New Yorker. If you were, you would know the back roads to avoid those traps like the rest of us do.
    • hikaruzero, on 05/10/2008, -22/+331Yeah he was totally being a dick. Unfortunately, I have to think that his inherent peckerheadedness is entirely justified. The police and police-like agencies (such as the department of homeland security) have become so arrogant and powerful that non-violent non-compliance is almost a natural response to contact with agents.

      It's nice that police want to help, it's nice that they solve murders and track down stolen vehicles and property, and put major violators in jail. But the job of the police has become so distorted, that they make most of their money picking on moving traffic violators, and bullying people who are innocent according to law into pleading guilty.

      I was arrested by police once, for being in an abandoned communal house, shooting a homebrew movie with my friends. They charged me with "criminal trespass." According to my state law (Pennsylvania), being on private property is entirely legal unless you are interfering with a business, or unless you are asked to leave by a person of authority (such as the owner, a manager, a resident, or a police officer). In addition, abandoned structures that are not used as a business, residence, or storage facility, and have no person of authority present, cannot be trespassed upon. Not only was I not guilty of criminal trespass, I was not guilty of even simple trespass. I pleaded innocent and paid a $50 collateral, and before the trial, I was pulled aside to the officer, who handed me a copy of the law regarding trespassing.

      I had looked up the trespassing law previously, and found the section saying that abandoned buildings which are not used as a residence, storage area, or business, are essentially exempt from trespass laws. The copy of the law the cop gave me had this section *curiously absent*, and there was even a gap in the section numbers showing that the relevant section was removed.

      The cop told me he had misfiled the charges as a misdemeanor, and that criminal trespass was actually a felony, punishable by no less than 30 days in jail. He said if I pleaded guilty, he would leave the charges filed as a misdemeanor and I would only have to pay the fine. I looked the ***** straight in the eye and told him that he was trying to bully me into pleading guilty, that the section on abandoned structures was missing, and that I was guilty of no violation. We went into the courthouse, the judge asked him for his opening statement, and he *DROPPED THE CHARGES* in that opening statement. I shook hands with the owner of the building, who told me if we wanted to continue making the movie, we should call and ask and he'd let us.

      Out of the $50 collateral I posted, I recieved only about $11 and some change. The rest was taken out of court fees. At the time, I was a kid, so I didn't realize it was illegal for them to assess court fees, and that I could have sued the state for false arrest and entrapment (intimidation into pleading guilty with threat of worse penalties).

      I'm still livid over the entire situation. I commend this fellow for entirely refusing to comply with the will of the state. They can go ***** themselves.
      • quarkie, on 05/10/2008, -31/+10Dude that sucks that you had to deal with a total jackass. However that doesn't excuse this guy acting like that towards someone who is just doing their job. If someone had done that to your cop, fine he probably deserves it. But the moment you start treating people like ***** before they even do anything to you, you become the jackass. Like the guy in the video.
        • wissler, on 05/10/2008, -3/+41She held him there without telling him he wasn't free to go for several minutes. "Just doing their job" is probably what most of the Nazis said to each other.
          • quarkie, on 05/11/2008, -4/+1Yep marching to Auschwitz and asking a question. Totally same ballpark here.
          • AKremlin, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1It didn't start with Auschwitz. Nazi Germany started by "asking a question" too.
          • kurtu5, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Its is the same ball park, have you not seen the German comments on the site?

            "It began with letting the police do their job"
        • flameboy, on 05/10/2008, -2/+22Treating somebody like *****?
          You mean sorta like stopping an innocent interstate traveler on the road for no reason and attempting to interrogate them? Such behavior is disrespectful, rude, and above all UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
        • hikaruzero, on 05/11/2008, -3/+8I don't think you understand the point. ALL law enforcement agencies are trained this way. To continue being a police officer, you MUST maintain a steady number of arrests. They use number of arrests to rate job performance. Border patrol is no exception!

          The point isn't to be a dick to the human being, the point is to be a dick to them while they are in uniform. I'm sorry, but if you are in uniform and you are showing off your badge, you are dead to me.

          I have also participated in Critical Mass, which is a monthly bike ride with the basic purpose of stopping traffic. One of the police officers, a Sergeant, who arrested some of my comrades basically said they were arresting people just to prove a point -- that they could, so that the rest of the 70-strong mob of bikers would lose heart.

          About a month later, I actually canvassed his house (I work at Clean Water Action, we do environmental political activism), and he signed and donated money, and said he would gladly ride along side of us next month, as long as we obeyed traffic laws and didn't stop the flow of traffic.

          That next month rolled around, and he lived up to his word, and we commended him for it.

          It's not about the person, it's about the uniform. If you wear the uniform, you can suck it. If you take it off, I will look you in the eye and shake your hand.

          ""Just doing their job" is probably what most of the Nazis said to each other."

          wissler is right: Many high-ranked Nazi leaders tried to get off in court that they were "just following orders," and the court did not pardon them. And rightfully so.

          "You mean sorta like stopping an innocent interstate traveler on the road for no reason and attempting to interrogate them? Such behavior is disrespectful, rude, and above all UNCONSTITUTIONAL."

          Actually, that behaviour is not unconstitutional. If you set up a traffic stop, you are technically placing motorists in police custody (but not "detention," hence the question, "am I being detained?"). At that point, they are allowed to ask questions, but you are not obligated to answer those questions. What the guy with the camera should have done, is said, "I refuse to answer any questions that I am not obligated to," and then asked if he was free to go.

          I agree with you that it is rather rude and obnoxious though. Do bear in mind, if you are stopped by an officer for a specific reason (i.e. speeding, running a stop sign, etc.), then you are technically both under arrest and in their custody (which is, again, not "detention"). At that point, they may cite you, and inform you that you must show up to court, but any questions aside from that which they ask you, you may refuse to answer. However, because you are technically also under arrest during that time, you cannot refuse to provide identification, but you can refuse to answer any other questions.

          If you are being detained, you will be read your Miranda rights. At that point in time, you must answer questions, whether or not you demand to have an attorney present. That makes it a technical interrogation.
        • flameboy, on 05/11/2008, -0/+10Hikaruzero:
          You are completely misinformed.
          Stopping motorists with out suspicion IS unconstitutional. That doesn't make it ILLEGAL. It *should* be illegal but sadly it isn't because the courts have allowed it thus far. The motorist is required to stop but is not required to answer any questions or submit to any searches. If this was required it would be even MORE unconstitutional.

          A traffic stop does not equal an arrest. Some groups are trying to perpetrate this definition and I have heard it before but it is false.

          Police are not required to read you your Miranda rights if they detain you, that is flat out wrong. Infact, they dont even have to read them to you if they arrest you - only if they arrest you AND want to use what you say as evidence against you later. If they catch you and have all the evidence they need they will arrest you and not read you a damn thing.

          And having your Miranda rights read to you does NOT mean you are required to answer any questions! Thats the very point of your Miranda rights, to educate you on that fact!

          So all in all, you are totally wrong in your statements. Please don't propagate such gross misinformation like that, it is very irresponsible.
      • Gunite, on 05/10/2008, -2/+14The insidiousness of the officers' actions is startling. He really should have lost his job. But the judge is also a failure. He should have figured out what was going on and reprimanded the officer.
        • fokov, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1They are on the same team. They want convictions, if anything to "ease" their day along. They don't care about you or your life.
      • familynight, on 05/10/2008, -1/+3i think that if they had gone ahead with charges that while it would have been an even bigger pain in the ass, you really could have got them on some fairly serious torts. abuse of process was probably already possible, although difficult to prove. malicious prosecution is a big one that only comes into play if they knowingly file false charges, i believe, but it carries rather more severe penalties. i think it's why they will drop charges at the last second in these cases. there might also be local abuse of authority laws. it's really a shame that so many people get bullied by the police and don't know their rights or their possible causes of action against the authorities. sometimes, lawyers can be extremely useful. also, from my own contact with police, i can definitely understand how immensely frustrating your situation must have been, and the video is pretty awesome.
      • Skywise, on 05/11/2008, -6/+3IU'd find it easier to believe your fantastic fiction if you had bothered to notice that cops don't charge people with crimes or try cases in front of judges... The DA does these things... the cops are witnesses. Better luck next time.
        • Shatneresque, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3Cops certainly do charge people with crimes. DAs work with grand juries to indict people. If you're going to correct someone, make sure you have your info straight first.
        • hikaruzero, on 05/11/2008, -2/+8Sorry kid, not sure where you are still growing up, but in Bethlehem, PA, the courthouse IS at the district attorney's office. Or rather, I should say, the district attorney's office is also at the courthouse. This is the case in almost EVERY major city, not just the tri-city area where I live.

          Anyway, it's not fiction. You can believe what you want, but someone complained about hearing yells in the abandoned building (we were filming a chase scene, there was yelling going on) and called the cops. They came up the stairs, the front officer drew his gun at me in the dark and told me to drop what was in my hand (the videocamera). I did so, and we all went outside. At the time, my friends were also called over. They were out on the roof of the nearby building. Because they were technically on the other building's roof, they weren't arrested. I was in the window of the abandoned building, so I was arrested and charged with criminal trespass after they attempted to get in contact with the building owner, and could not. So they charged me, then sent him the notice to appear in court. Which is exactly what happened.

          Believe what you want, but get your facts straight before you start calling people out, nimrod.
          • Skywise, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1Right and cops don't press the charges... the DA does. The cop arresed you on criminal trespass because he couldn't confirm your story about the landlord giving you permission (so much for being "abandoned") and the DA CHARGED you with it (which is what you paid the court fees for) (if such a thing actually happened because I still doubt it).
          • flameboy, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5Dude, why would you doubt it?
            It sounds totally plausible wtf is wrong with you? You think he just decided to type up that long story for fun?

            The cops and the DA work together to charge someone, but what bearing does that have on anything he has said? It doesn't matter who fills out the paperwork. Christ.
    • thcobbs, on 05/10/2008, -56/+20Interesting. He won't answer her questions but he expects an answer to his? Hypocrite.
      • hikaruzero, on 05/10/2008, -5/+39Funny how she keeps asking the same question, in the face of him asking the same question? She knows he's responding correctly; despite that, she continues trying to do the government's will by getting an answer to an unnecessary question.

        What is so god damned important about what country you are from, and what kind of question is that to begin with? The question is clearly unrelated to anything in the situation -- the woman didn't even ask him his name or to see his identification (which would SHOW her where he is from). She's just tallying stats for the government so they can crunch more numbers and use those numbers to bully around more Americans and eschew their rights at a later date.
      • Protonz, on 05/10/2008, -4/+9Do you think she is a hypocrite too? Or are you the hypocrite...
        • gandhii, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1I thought he was calling her a hypocrite .. but now that I read it again... I see that I was wrong.. but the logic escapes me. It only really made since the other way around since she initiated the whole encounter.
      • notoneofus, on 05/10/2008, -4/+39No hypocrisy involved. She is required, by law, to answer the questions he asked.

        He is not required to answer the question she asked.
        • dougmc, on 05/10/2008, -10/+9As much as I'd like to believe that you're right, I'm not aware of any law that requires a police officer (she is a police officer, right? It's hard to tell) to answer your question -- but there are laws that require you to answer a police officer's legal questions (now, is this a legal question? I don't know.)
          • buckrogers1965, on 05/10/2008, -2/+11You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.
          • dougmc, on 05/10/2008, -5/+3`You have the right to remain silent. ' Yes, I've heard of Miranda. But he wasn't under arrest, now was he?

            http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/police_s ... is probably more appropriate here, though I'm not sure that simply driving on a road qualifies as `suspicious activity'.

          • dougmc, on 05/10/2008, -4/+2http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/police_s ... my link, untruncated
          • chewbie, on 05/10/2008, -3/+2The police officer has to identify her/himself. My name is ... and I am captain/agent/janitor. She's on the job so she pretty much has to answer that.
            The guy was an ***** for asking her badge - number though. Seems to me that the US government "knows what's best for you" more and more each day.
          • TonyLocNE, on 05/10/2008, -1/+4@Dougmc
            "Yes, I've heard of Miranda. But he wasn't under arrest, now was he?"
            Hence the question: "Am I being detained?"
            If the answer is "no," then he is free to go.
            If the answer is "yes," then he has the right to remain silent and not answer any of her questions.... Do you understand now?
          • notoneofus, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4Yes, an officer is required to give you both name and badge number. As we've often seen in recent media, though, they don't always do so.
        • FloMonster, on 05/10/2008, -1/+16http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_sta ...
          In some states (including California, where I reside) unless you are being detained, have been pulled over while driving, or have been arrested you do not have to answer a police officers questions, including having to identify yourself. However if you ask an officer to identify himself they have to identify themselves, at the very least by last name and/or badge number.
          • boot20, on 05/10/2008, -6/+1This is called the "Terry Law." However, the officer could have claimed probable cause because he refused and was being an ***** about the whole thing just TRYING to escalate it.
          • dougmc, on 05/10/2008, -4/+2Ok, but 1) he was pulled over while driving, and 2) he was never actually asked to identify himself (though that might have come next.)

            And as for police providing badge numbers or identifying themselves, I know that's a department policy in at least some juristictions, but I'm still unaware of any actual laws that require it.

            I'm not defending the cop's actions or denouncing his -- I'm just saying I'm not sure the law says what people claim it says.
        • boot20, on 05/10/2008, -13/+11What crack are you on? If a policy office questions you, you are REQUIRED BY law to answer. It's called obstruction if you fail to do so. This is nothing new.
          • FloMonster, on 05/10/2008, -3/+6Fail. Read the article on Stop & Identify statutes, and inform yourself.
          • boot20, on 05/10/2008, -4/+3Did you miss the rest of the thread?

            Welcome to the fail boat.
          • mikelieman, on 05/10/2008, -4/+3"You have the right to remain silent"
            "You have the right to an attorney"

            So, Keep Your Mouth Shut Until Your Attorney Shows Up.

            Both Martha Stewart and Marion Jones should have remembered that advice.
          • flameboy, on 05/10/2008, -2/+6You are completely and 100% wrong in everything you said.
            Its called obstruction when you LIE, not when you refuse to answer questions.
          • boot20, on 05/10/2008, -3/+1Flameboy is wrong. Lying has little, if anything to do with Obstruction. Take a look at this link:
            http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/glossary.html
          • flameboy, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5uhhhh No.
            YOU are wrong.

            "Obstruction of justice - All unlawful acts committed with intent to prevent or hinder the administration of justice, including law enforcement, judicial, and correctional functions"

            Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 makes it a crime to: 1) knowingly and willfully; 2) make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; 3) in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States. Your lie does not even have to be made directly to an employee of the national government as long as it is "within the jurisdiction" of the ever expanding federal bureaucracy.

            Lying under federal jurisdiction is not only obstruction but a crime for which many have gone to jail. So please shut the hell up until you know what you are talking about.
          • boot20, on 05/11/2008, -5/+1*sigh* Once again the kiddies on digg take over...I wonder why I even bother some days. Did you even read the quote you posted...I'm going to guess no...

            Why don't you go back and read that again...and again...and again...and try to figure out why you are wrong. Once you figure that out, please post again....
          • rentmitchum, on 05/11/2008, -2/+4To me it sounds like flameboy knows what he's talking about and you don't boot. That, and you sound pretentious while being false, as you insist on degrading people who disagree with you. If anyone is being "kiddy" it's you. If you're an adult prove your ***** point or get off our internets. Don't insult to try to make yourself right.
          • boot20, on 05/11/2008, -4/+1Flameboy knows how to make sock puppets...good for him.
      • videographer, on 05/11/2008, -2/+8You are missing the point. SHE works for HIM, not the other way around. In the absence of probable cause, he's entirely in the right.
    • patrflav, on 05/10/2008, -17/+136AM I BEING DETAINED AM I BEING DETAINED AM I BEING DETAINED AM I BEING DETAINED AM I BEING DETAINED AM I BEING DETAINED AM I BEING DETAINED AM I BEING DETAINED AM I BEING DETAINED AM I BEING DETAINED AM I BEING DETAINED AM I BEING DETAINED AM I BEING DETAINED AM I BEING DETAINED AM I BEING DETAINED AM I BEING DETAINED AM I BEING DETAINED AM I BEING DETAINED AM I BEING DETAINED AM I BEING DETAINED AM I BEING DETAINED AM I BEING DETAINED AM I BEING DETAINED AM I BEING DETAINED AM I BEING DETAINED AM I BEING DETAINED AM I BEING DETAINED AM I BEING DETAINED
      • unreg, on 05/10/2008, -13/+7Are we there yet?
        • hikaruzero, on 05/10/2008, -7/+13Am I free to go?
        • userperson, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5If we keep having to stop, we'll certainly never get there.
      • 9bpm9, on 05/10/2008, -37/+10I couldn't watch the video anymore because he wouldn't shut the hell up. Answer the damn question and be on your way, not be a dick so you can put a video on the internet and try to look like something other than a complete fool.
        • SpaceRibs, on 05/10/2008, -1/+20if you like authority so much, why don't you marry it?
        • flameboy, on 05/11/2008, -2/+11Yeah, she should have answered the question and he would have been on his way.
        • userperson, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5We all marry it -- it's a shotgun wedding.
          Though apparently some of us relish sucking the dick of state power.
      • diversionmary, on 05/10/2008, -10/+15THE BEST THE BEST THE BEST
        • mrASSMAN, on 05/10/2008, -5/+6Haha, once digg makes the full transition into 4chan, this comment will be dugg up. (it's a meme)
        • SwedishNinja, on 05/11/2008, -8/+2Considered Digging you down due to newfaggotry, but decided to digg you up because I'm wearing a Foo Fighters shirt from the 2005 tour where I saw this performed live.

          6/10
        • rentmitchum, on 05/11/2008, -2/+4Forced meme is forced.
        • Banelos, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1Can you please keep 4chan memes on 4chan?
      • mikelieman, on 05/10/2008, -3/+301. Am I Under Arrest?

        2. May I Go Now?

        3. Goto 1

        • onionbagel724, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2G Wiz Mikelieman, you have said this 4 times already. heh
      • Shatneresque, on 05/11/2008, -1/+20If she'd simply answered him the first time, he wouldn't have had to repeat it.
        • dralezero, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Kind of like my girlfriends who don't answer the first time, instead we argue for hours, then they finally tell the truth.
      • badger500, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3That needs to go on hundreds of thousands of t-shirts.
      • kall, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2AM I FREE TO GO?
      • flyingsleeves, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1***** IT, WE'LL DO IT LIVE!
    • FuckThaMeme, on 05/10/2008, -34/+12This guy was a ***** *****-jockey
    • saulimus, on 05/10/2008, -6/+74Strange that it can be considered activism if doing this is within his rights...
      • robbiemuffin, on 05/10/2008, -1/+15activism ≠ civil disobedience
        • rentmitchum, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3Cool symbol, that's one to remember. I can haz alt code?
      • mikelieman, on 05/10/2008, -3/+18This actually shows something else really interesting.

        Like vampires, Law Enforcement is powerless unless you invite them in.

        This guy *perfectly* executed the "These aren't the droids you're looking for" move, denying the alleged authority figure any way to react as he retained control of the situation.

        WARNINGS:

        1) This happened upstate/by canada .
        2) This happened on the record.

        The *very same* strategy could easily get your ass tasered in a different context.
        • kurtu5, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1If an officer asks you to let them search and they do, you have no claim against unreasonable search because you voluntarily relinquished your right.

          So they work this against the public, they try to get JonhQ to say, "yeah I relinquish my right to due process". Once you do that, say good bye to any constitutional protections you had.
    • afiado, on 05/10/2008, -31/+16This guy created a completely hostile situation in 2 seconds flat.....people are stupid. You all think that these checkpoints are designed for some kind of ill purpose. What they are designed to do is to catch people that have crossed the border illegally by any other means than a car. Think about it...say Jose and his family crossed the border 100 miles out in the middle of some desert where minimal human presence exists. They eventually find their way to some remote road north, met up with Pancho, and began a trek further inside the country. Thankfully the U.S. border patrol has set up an "unlawful checkpoint". Jose Pancho and family, unable to answer these simple questions, are detained and deported. Although Pancho and friends are not bad people, systems like this are designed to protect the U.S. from illegal contraband and nice foreigners alike.

      I realize that some may think that this is just being indiscriminate to foreigners looking to further their lives. "It's just unlawful and unfair!" "Who did Jose and family hurt?" Well, the perspective the government seems to take is that of a judicial one. If Jose and family are generally good people and have nothing of a negative suggestion to hide, why not go through the proper arrangements to cross the border legally? By having these laws, although not perfect, the government for the most part eradicates a lot of illegal drugs and people who do posses these negative qualities. Jose and family are just out of luck because they chose to arrive illegally. It is just simple logic....treat my rights and laws with respect, and I will treat yours with respect.
      • afiado, on 05/10/2008, -10/+0***posses***
      • unreg, on 05/10/2008, -13/+3Your logic is lost on the Police State haters.
      • thall, on 05/10/2008, -2/+15If that checkpoint was to replicate the border port of entry why did she fail to ask for ID? Why did she let him go in the end? Do border officers let people in without checking ID? Do they let people pass if they get annoying?
        • boot20, on 05/10/2008, -10/+2She took down his plate number, radioed ahead, and he was pulled over at the border. How hard is that for you toolboxes to figure out?
        • thall, on 05/10/2008, -2/+7@boot, what would be the point of that if they've already got him right there? Besides, you'd think he'd either video that event too or at least mention it at the end of the video that he later posted online!
          • boot20, on 05/10/2008, -2/+2Sure he would...oh wait..no because it didn't prove his point. This is typical. If you refuse or are a jerk, at the border, they ask for permission to search your vehicle and examine why you were a toolbag.

            These border checks are so common and have been in place for YEARS (at least back to the mid 70's). I don't understand why all of a sudden it's a police state, if it's been in place for over 30 years...what just because you young diggers are just encountering them, they must be new???
          • thall, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3@boot, lack of such video does not imply he intentionally left it out. It still doesn't make sense for them to wait until he drives down the road and *then* pulls him over. Even by your logic [that he wouldn't post a video unless it made his point] it would be in the cop's best interest to pull him over right then and there to ruin his video.

            Are you saying you knew of these unwarranted checkpoints since the mid 70's and did *nothing* about it??
          • boot20, on 05/11/2008, -4/+1*sigh*...He's making a point, so of course we don't know the full story. He posted just enough to make his point.

            As for "knowing" about this since the 70's, yup...they've been around for quite some time and I could really care less. You want to know why? Because it's not that big of a deal. If I really cared about it, I'd do something that would make a difference, like run for a political office or lobby my congressmen....Harassing officers at a check points is childish and pointless.
        • gandhii, on 05/10/2008, -1/+4I also think it is safe to assume that we was driving in the opposite direction of the border. Otherwise, why would the Border Patrol be stopping cars going in the direction that he was going.
      • flameboy, on 05/10/2008, -1/+6You present a thoughtful argument. The problem is that you are now stopping every motorist that crosses a state border simply to check for illegals. Thats akin to random police searches simply to check for drugs / contraband and is a solid civil rights violation.

        I have no problem with border checks... but once you enter the country you should NOT be detained while traveling unless there is cause.
      • ParticleMan420, on 05/10/2008, -8/+2you lie! its all about racism and a police state!
        its IMPOSSIBLE for there to be a rational and reasonable explanation.
        how are they going to take away all of our freedoms and oppress us if they cant train us to accept their totalitarian ways.
        because, you know, totalitarian police states like to ease in and let people get usedf to it gradually before forcing you to do what they say at gunpoint.
        and yes, i was making fun of the alex jones crowd claiming 'police state' any time anyone with authority says or does anything.
        • TonyLocNE, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2I like Alex Jones? hmmm.. thank you person I've never met before for pointing out things I didn't know about myself. Personally, I find his voice rather annoying.

          Nevertheless, I love how you blatant Anti-Americans generalize and categorize people based on loose assumptions. Because I care about this country and my rights as a United States citizen, that automatically makes me (fill in the blank). The phrase "You're either with us, or against us," is one of the most undemocratic and least patriotic phrases ever uttered, and you ***** nutjobs love it.
          • ParticleMan420, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1maybe you like him but dont know it?
            i'm just saying that the 'police state' crowd is the alex jones crowd. if you think the government wants to control us, so that the 5 or 6 rich people that really control the world can continue doing so long enough for them to kill us all, then you might like alex jones. But yea, his voice is a little irritating.
            and i was being sarcastic
    • jozb, on 05/10/2008, -3/+48This is what happened to a Senator from Vermont.
      "It’s interesting - I went through one of those symbolic checkpoints in the state of New York driving back here. It was about 125 miles from the border. In a car with license plate one on it from Vermont. With little letters underneath it that said US Senate. We were stopped and ordered to get out of the car and prove my citizenship. And I said “what authority are you acting under?” and one of your agents pointed to his gun and said “that’s all the authority I need.”
      http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200803/030408b.html

      also it looks like 100 miles from the border the can still legally question you.
      "...I had already been legally admitted to the U.S. so I checked with a lawyer in Texas. He explained to me that everyone is legally obligated to answer any legitimate question the border patrol asks about citizenship within 100 miles of the border and you can be arrested if you refuse."
      http://www.boingboing.net/2008/04/22/us-border-pat ...

      also don't forget the Patriot Act.
    • mike17032, on 05/10/2008, -19/+8Not really, its just some ***** with to much time on his hands so he goes around trying to make peoples jobs harder.

      I know you diggiots worship this kind of pointless stupidity, but most of you will grow out of this phase after you get real jobs.
      • choopie911, on 05/10/2008, -2/+10You clearly missed the point of this. Keep trying to be smug though, whatever helps you.
      • gandhii, on 05/10/2008, -1/+4I have a real job and I hate people like you even more.
        • boot20, on 05/10/2008, -4/+2Working at Jack in the Box does not count as a real job.
          • ru1dt, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3good one... When you come out of the mansion in the morning, do you actually use your servants as doormats or is that just a metaphor?
      • Shatneresque, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5Those of us with "real" jobs and "real" lives and who value REAL freedom find the kind of quasi-police state crap in that video nauseating. I applaud the driver for standing up for himself.

        Maybe you're too young to remember, but back in the Cold War days, we used to mock the Soviet Union for the fact that their own citizens could be stopped anywhere, any time, and asked "papers please". Now that's coming to the US. At the moment it's only within 100 miles of the border. Soon it will be in more places, then more, then more, and then when idiots like you finally wake up and realize you're living in a police state, you'll ask what can be done about it. The answer will be, "the time to stop this was back when it was in the early stages, but unfortunately no one realized what it was leading to back then."
        • boot20, on 05/11/2008, -5/+1Jesus Christ, this crap has been going on since at least the 40's. So, the "police state" has been having a little trouble getting started if it really can't do too much in 50ish years.
    • renski13, on 05/10/2008, -16/+11Yeah... This guy was just being a douche while this woman was just trying to do her job. Excellent activism.
      • insllvn, on 05/10/2008, -3/+6The Nuremberg Defense is not valid.
      • insllvn, on 05/10/2008, -2/+5Just trying to do her job? Befehl ist Befehl, no?
        • insllvn, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2he he woops

          I try and mix up my retorts, I guess my earlier comment hadn't loaded when I made this one (I left the page and came back). I specifically said something different to avoid being one of those guys who leaves the same damn comment everywhere it might be appropriate. Sorry.
    • STARTSOMETHING, on 05/10/2008, -20/+27Shes's just doing her job, to make a living. Why attack her? Thats like saying, Mc Donald's is making America fat. I'm going to attack the next guy who takes my order.
      • turpenine, on 05/10/2008, -6/+10no its like saying the workers at mcdonalds are making you fat.
      • smotpoker, on 05/11/2008, -6/+7So if McDonald's employees routinely stop you, without provocation, to ask you the same questions and invade your privacy you're saying you *wouldn't* blame them?


        It's more like blaming McDonalds for not properly training their employees or giving the employees a hard time when they consistently and knowingly get your order wrong, ask the same questions or otherwise waste your time. However, if it were McDonald's we would have a choice to just avoid the premises. Unfortunately with government officials, we don't usually have that option.


        At McDonald's we can and do complain to the staff or management when we are unhappy, however in many cases similar complaints against government invasions go completely ignored or aren't even made due to fear of retaliation. Unlike McDonald's, their profits don't drop when they inconvenience their patrons and actual abuses are usually hard to prove.


        As a result, often the only way we can do *anything* to facilitate a change is carry a camera and give the officers a hard time so that they will complain as well
        • ricepicker4000, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2U took the McDonalds example way too far lol. In the end she has no control on whether or not she wants to have checkpoints set up or w/e and is just doing her job.
          • smotpoker, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2In the end, if the government refuses to listen to a large proportion of it's people in a manner that consistently impedes their rights/freedom, the only choice is civil disobedience.


            This "only doing their job" mindset is what turns people into sheeple and why we are currently plagued by immorality and abuse of power around the country. "Only doing their job" does not apply when they are doing it improperly and violating your rights/burdening you unnecessarily, period.
      • purelithium, on 05/11/2008, -1/+20How was he attacking her? Just because he didn't want to be a mindless, compliant, sheep he is suddenly being offensive and combative? Please...
      • flameboy, on 05/11/2008, -2/+14For the love of god stop pretending like "just doing their job" is an excuse for any behavior good or bad. The driver in the video was also "just doing his job" of protecting his civilian rights which were being violated by this lady doing HER job.

        Everyone's got a job to do so just STOP using it as an cop-out.
        • xaxxon, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3technically she never violated his rights - she just asked him to not exercise them. I'm not saying what they're doing right; I'm just saying that no rights were actually violated.
          • smotpoker, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Technically, it could be argued that forcing someone to stop without reason to suspect them specifically of wrongdoing is a violation of rights. One that is supposed to protect us from unreasonable search and seizure. Notice how she checked the back of his truck before she let him go?

            Also technically, she did detain him for a few minutes and asking for ID is a violation of privacy without specific reason - though neither of those arguments hold water in court anymore.

            I would also venture to say that the scenario would have played out a lot differently if he didn't have a camera with him, turned it off or had he agreed to pull over when she asked - which would likely have led to worse/more rights violations. As long as we remain complacent to these invasions they will continue to perpetuate.
        • rentmitchum, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Were the contractors on the death star complicit in the designs of the empire? They were just doing a job. You need to evaluate the moral implications of what you're doing, and if you do something that messes with someone's rights you need to realize there's a rare few who will stand up for those rights.
        • fatcatman, on 05/14/2008, -0/+0Thank you, I was about to say virtually exactly what you did. "I'm just doing my job" is a ***** excuse. Never comply with anyone who is trying to violate your rights, whether they're "just doing their job" or not. I don't care if the president himself gave you the orders. You do not get to walk all over the people and do as you damn well please, without any basis in law, and pretend it's not your fault because you were only following orders. That didn't work for the military prison guards in Iraq and it sure as hell isn't going to work for some lowly cop.
      • nexus420, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1Funny, that was the defense the Nazi's used as they were gassing millions of people. "Just following orders sir!" A power trip is not a job function.
      • lamiaconfitor, on 05/31/2008, -0/+1awww.. I'm sure she is an adult and knows the law well enough. she wasn't 'attacked.'
    • IMKyle, on 05/11/2008, -9/+4What activism?? what right is violated here... to those of you who want to say the 4th amendment please read it first... Look specifically a "Terry stops" and how they apply to vehicular search and detainment.

      She should have told him he was being detained, which btw wouldn't be violating his rights, but he probably scared her the way he was acting.. what a creepy weirdo.. Idk why y'all get off on this kinda stuff. I expected better from you, diggers.
      • flameboy, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5I would advise you to go read up on Terry stops.
        There must be "articulable suspicion" to carry out a Terry stop and there was obviously NO valid suspicion in this case. And the refusal to answer questions does NOT count as suspicious. Likewise, not consenting to a search does not give probable cause to search.
        • smotpoker, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4Actually, depending on how poor you are (or appear), refusal to answer questions or identify yourself is enough to land you in jail. You can be charged with obstruction, resisting and such even if there is no evidence of a specific crime to investigate/prosecute
          • flameboy, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2charged with obstruction and resisting for not answering questions?
            I suppose this could happen but it would be considered police misconduct.
          • smotpoker, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2It should be but very often isn't. I am not completely clear on all of the specifics and they tend to vary a bit by state but refusing to answer anything can be regarded as suspicious and suspicion is probable cause for detainment/arrest. Further refusals could result in obstruction charges and the like. http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14528res20040730.ht ...

            I am not saying it's always completely legal but it is fairly common. The police just have to say you were looking nervous when you saw them drive or thought you might be connected with some sort of recent criminal activity in the area (which may or may not be true). The more uncooperative and poor/criminal you appear, the more likely it is to occur since they assume you were or will probably be guilty of something bad anyway and cannot afford a lawyer, you should be taught a lesson.

            Keep in mind, in many states you cannot even get a public defender if you aren't charged with a felony or going to a jury trial (which takes months) and often cannot even consult one until you have been arraigned. When your only options are plead guilty and get out now/soon or spend months in jail waiting on a trial you might not win due to disinformation on the police report, and you have had little or no legal council on the matter, most tend to favor the "plead guilty and get out now" option.

            Police know this and that subsequent suits/appeals are a lot less likely with the impoverished and those who seem less credible, so it tends to happen a lot more with them. It is an abuse of process, and often illegal, but it does happen a fair amount.

            I would just like to suggest not refusing outright or indignantly unless you have the resources to get a lawyer, pursue a suit or at least bail out
    • TWillz, on 05/11/2008, -3/+5That video was full of win.
    • zedzedtop, on 05/11/2008, -12/+7Anyone commending this "activist" is no longer allowed to complain about the immigration problem in the US
      • flameboy, on 05/11/2008, -1/+11Yeah.
        And complaining about warrentless wiretapping means I love terrorists, right nimrod?
      • daizaru, on 05/11/2008, -1/+7They were 50 miles from the border stopping people going both ways. Do you really think they EVER catch anyone that way to justify that. They should be watching the borders themselves, not harassing people for using a common road. The amount of vehicles and people there to block a road could be covering a lot more ground looking for people and doing some real good.
    • jiqiren, on 05/11/2008, -8/+3This is all stupid nonsense. The Supreme Court has already ruled that this specifically is completely legal within 100 miles of the border:
      http://supreme.justia.com/us/428/543/case.html

      This douche should be glad he isn't in prison - or dead from being shot or tazed.
      • swefred, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4So if the supreme court said that it was ok to imprison all Arabs it would be ok?

        Just because someone wrote a peace of paper does not make it right.
    • cyricc, on 05/12/2008, -3/+3Everyone digging this video up is a retard, the lady STATES she is working for border patrol and needs to know what country he is a citizen of, after such a question is answered THEN she can tell you whether you are being detained or not, ***** idiot douchebag looking for a reason to call himself cool, i hate you all
      • flameboy, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2uh no.
        you are not obligated to answer any questions from law enforcement.
        thanks, and i hate you too.
  • Rohhob, on 05/10/2008, -159/+91What a dick...although we do need dicks like this that will help our "authority" figures remember what rights we have.

    I just wish he would have done it to someone else, preferably someone not so cute.
    Also, she can detain me any day.
    • carpespasm, on 05/10/2008, -15/+77He wasn't being a dick at all. He didn't get cocky, he didn't try to show her how she didn't have jurisdiction over him unless she arrested him or shoot his mouth off. He just stuck to the few statements you can say to any police officer that don't give them further reason to detain you while not giving in to any request that wasn't a specific order.
      • twiztidsinz, on 05/10/2008, -46/+19He was being a dick by not answering a simple stupid question.
        He was being a dick by ignoring the fact that he was delaying EVERYONE ELSE behind him.
        He was being a dick by blowing this whole thing out of proportion.
        • carpespasm, on 05/10/2008, -3/+40He had no reason to answer the question any more than he had to answer an border patrol agent's question on his favorite color.
          The border patrol was technically the one delaying everyone else. If they weren't there no one would be held up.
          How did he blow it out of proportion? The entire video is nothing more than his hesitance to answer a question he didn't have to.
          • se1zure, on 05/10/2008, -19/+1So Am I not a dick If I sit at a vending machine with fourty people behind me for 10 minutes because I refuse to make a selection? If he isn't detained he can just drive away.

            In honesty, it would be stupid for him to act like this because all it would take is an office on the other side of the stop to follow him until he made some form of traffic violoation (speeding, wreckless driving, following too close, etc)
          • gandhii, on 05/10/2008, -0/+9A vending machine forcibly kept you from making a decision? I don't understand your analogy.
          • JDenigma, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5se1zure just has his priorities out of whack. He much like others like him in this thread who are bitching in this same refrain, apparently are more concerned about a fellow citizen of theirs inconveniencing them by questioning the orders of their "betters" than they are with themselves doing something to question authority and stand up for liberty. No, people like him blame the victims(the driver) rather than their slave holder. Hey, they just want to get home on time so they can crack open a beer and watch their sports or Dancing with the Stars programming. The hell with what is happening to the world outside their reality. At least citizens like this driver will be the ones who will be responsible for reclaiming our lost liberty, if we ever do. The ones bitching about it in this thread would have been the Good Germans or would have been with the Red Coats.
          • p0tent1al, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3Comparing a Vending Machine to Border Patrol.........

            ladies and gents, only an idiot can conjure up an analogy like that up.
          • se1zure, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1@gandhii

            he is not being forced to stay there. He is not detained, and he could have taken a different route if it was that big of a deal to him.
        • twiztidsinz, on 05/10/2008, -35/+12For starters.. how about being a civil human being?
          He could have had some common curtsy: just because he didn't HAVE TO answer her questions doesn't mean he shouldn't. Just because I don't HAVE TO help my neighbor bring grocery's into the house doesn't mean I shouldn't.
          Give a little, get a little... You can make concessions without giving up your rights.
          • mciampa1214, on 05/10/2008, -0/+15Hitler didn't take Germany overnight... It's called appeasement.
          • dagnome1984, on 05/10/2008, -0/+11He was civil with the nice officer.
          • ru1dt, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5oh, oh, what do I get? i hope that i'm home when they come by to give out all the presents for being docile
          • JDenigma, on 05/11/2008, -1/+6These sheep make me sick
          • nyrol2, on 05/11/2008, -4/+1He should have just answered the question of which wasn't unreasonable. Just because he didn't have to, doesn't mean it's a problem to. He was being an ***** unless he for some reason found the question to be unreasonable to answer. Just answer it and get on with it. What are you proving by being a jerk to border patrol?
          • p0tent1al, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2nyrol2, you just don't get it. If I came to your house RIGHT now, in the middle of the night, knocked on your door, and politely asked you if you could answer a couple of questions, what would you do?

            Would you
            A: Procede to answer my questions
            B: Ask me who I was, and why I am asking questions
            C: Slam the door shut and call the police

            Let me give you a hint: If you answered A, you're an idiot. Just because she is politely asking questions, doesn't mean anything, the same as if I came to your door right now, the argument that I am "politely" asking questions would hold absolutely no water or validity. Think about it, maybe you will figure it out.

            By the way, her letting him go "shows" that state checkpoint is "pointless", and that would make any questions from her UNREASONABLE.
          • Corrosionx, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3"Hitler didn't take Germany overnight... It's called appeasement."

            No, it's called "Waiting for the secret money from the Wall Street financiers like Prescott Bush".
        • HubrisDeadPan, on 05/10/2008, -4/+34Courtesy is a two way street, if the government isn't going to show courtesy to it's citizens by leaving them alone and not harassing them on highways, then we do not owe them any in return.